Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Street tunnel/archive1

750h

Will review. Remind me and hopefully I'll get to this before the end of this week. 750h+ 19:43, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

@750h+: A reminder. Steelkamp (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Ah sorry, I'll aim for this by tomorrow. 750h+ 05:07, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

lead

• of twin bored tunnel plus cut-and-cover tunnel ==> "of twin bored tunnel plus a cut-and-cover tunnel"

description

• North from the station, the tunnel runs under should "from" be "of" instead?

planning

• committee found it hard to maybe "struggled" instead of "found it hard"?
• Street to veer out of the ==> "Street to exit the"
• An opinion poll by The West Australian newspaper found that 39 percent of respondents supported the central route and 35 percent of respondents supported the western route. "percent" ==> "per cent" (Australian English)

procurement

• taking the cost of the Southern Suburbs Railway to $1.059 billion ==> "making the cost of the Southern Suburbs Railway $1.059 billion"
• contract for such a construction project has been ==> "contract for such a construction project had been"
• released a report which said the City Project's ==> "released a report that said the City Project's"

construction

• be more pedestrian friendly ==> "be more pedestrian-friendly"
• back to before the Mounts Bay was reclaimed should "the" be here?
• The delays were attributed on the heritage ==> "The delays were attributed to the heritage"
• The possibility for further delays caused ==> "The possibility of further delays caused"

industrial action

• ordered that they returned to work ==> "ordered that they return to work"

contract disputes

• No problems here. 750h+ 23:07, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

@Steelkamp: thanks for the article! all my concerns above. 750h+ 23:07, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

@750h+: I've implemented all your suggestions. Thanks, Steelkamp (talk) 07:59, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Support. 750h+ 19:50, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Harry

Always nice to see a bit of transport infrastructure at FAC! Reviewing prose/MoS/comprehensiveness; probably won't check sources/images in any detail.

• with two stations: Perth Underground and Elizabeth Quay what's that "with" doing? It's trying to splice a clause about the two stations into the rest of the sentence but it's failing. Depending on how much you want to emphasise the stations, you could either rewrite the whole sentence or just give the stations their own sentence. Short sentences aren't a(b inherently) bad thing.
  • I've rewritten the whole sentence.
• You don't need all three instance of "2007" in the last sentence of the lead; you could afford to lose one or even two.
  • Removed two.
• I don't really get a feel from the lead of why the tunnel was built or why it's important. I get that it was part of a line and you probably don't want to duplicate that article but a little context would be nice—what does it connect, who does it serve, is it metro/light rail or heavy rail? In other words, why was it necessary to dig a tunnel under Perth? I'd suggest maybe a sentence or two in the lead and a small paragraph of background in the body.
  • I've added some context to the lead with this edit. I hope the first paragraph under "Planning" is sufficient background.
• I feel the procurement section is possibly a little too detailed. All construction projects have procurement processes. I'm not sure the unsuccessful tenders and shortlistings are important details in the scheme of things (would we go into this level of detail for a 19th-century infrastructure project?) and the section could be pared back.
  • I've removed the list of 5 consortia. I've kept in the shortlist of two though, due to the commentary from Clough's managing director about the project's risks, which later proved prescient.
• Due to pressure from the Liberal and Greens parties Greens parties?
  • The names of the Wikipedia articles are Liberal Party of Australia and Australian Greens (no party), so I've decided on "Liberal Party and Greens".
• In general, you use the phrase "due to" quite a lot. There's nothing wrong with "because of" but other sentence structures are available.
  • I've replaced some instances of "due to" with other words.

I'll be back. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:49, 5 January 2026 (UTC) Continuing:

• I'm not sure all the detail on all the strikes is encyclopaedic. I think a summary along the lines of "there were lots of strikes" and the causes of them would be better than listing each of them one by one, especially as it seems to based largely on contemporary reporting. How much weight do later publications give it?
  • Later publications mainly talk about the February-March 2006 strike. I'll see what I can do to reduce the detail in this section.
  • I've cut this section down significantly. I've kept each individual strike and their cause, but removed the detail on each. The key strikes are the November 2005 one, which disrupted tunnelling and resulted in the strike ban, and the February-March 2006 one, which broke the strike ban and resulted in the prosecutions.
• pre-trial settlement in November 2006, with the CFMEU paying Leighton that "with" isn't adding any meaning and is forcing a tense change mid-sentence. A semicolon would be better, or two separate sentences.
  • I've chosen a semicolon.
• in protest to a shop steward being dismissed I've never heard the term "protest to" before; normally a protest is at a decision. Also "steward's dismissal" would be tighter.
  • I've reworded this to "in protest against".
• Leighton said that the state government could deregister the union, pass legislation protecting the project, or launch its own legal action against the union,[176][177] while the state opposition said that the striking workers should be dismissed. Is this just normal politicking or does it have some greater significance?
  • I've left this as "MacTiernan criticised the strike, but said that there was nothing she could do as it was the contractor's responsibility to find a solution.[167][169] Leighton and the state opposition disputed the claims that the state government could do nothing."
• issued writs against 107 workers wait, Aussie law allows employers to sue their employees for striking? Can they not just dismiss them if the strike is improper? At the risk of diverging too far the topic at hand, a few explanatory words or a link might be helpful.
  • Does this sentence help?: "The prosecution of those workers was described as "unprecedented" by the Australian Institute of Employment Rights, and relied on the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005 passed by the Howard government, which was criticised for removing the right to strike." To be precise, the Australian Building and Construction Commission sued the workers. I'm not 100% sure why the employees weren't just dismissed. Sources don't say, but I speculate that it would be hard to replace them as tunnelling roles are quite specialised, and firing them would cause even more strikes. Leighton-Kumagai probably just wanted the strikes to go away and for the project to be completed with the least delay possible. Apparently that worked, because there were no more strikes following that.
• which was done as the strike was against the advice of the union Suggest re-casting the sentence to put this at the front so it can be in active voice. Also swap "as" for "because" in formal writing.
  • Done.
• Throughout 2004 and 2005, the Leighton–Kumagai joint venture claimed Define "claimed", ie in a press release, letters, legal proceedings?
  • The sources all say the claims were "lodged", so probably letters. I have reworded accordingly.
• The contract disputes seems an odd note to leave it on. Perhaps you move the "opening" section to the bottom so we finish on the current status of the tunnel?
  • The conclusion of the contract disputes happened over a year after the tunnel's opening, so I think its best that section comes after the tunnel's opening so things are in rough chronological order.
• In a similar vein, is there any post-opening history? Even something banal like "X number of trains pass through the runnel each day"?
  • Not really any post-opening history to speak of, other than along the lines of what you suggest. I'm hesitant to include that though, as its duplicative of what's on the Mandurah line and Yanchep line articles, and I wrote this article to be about the tunnel specifically and not the service through it. Also, that's not history per se, and more about current service.
• That's quite a lot of further reading. Is all of it directly relevant? Some of it looks like it would be better used as a reference.
  • Most of the further reading is documents that are too technical to be used as a source (the conferences and journal articles, the report appendices). The Australian Institute of Employment Rights report contains lots of additional information on the prosecution of the 107 workers, and the broader political debate around industrial relations in Australia at the time, but I don't think its suitable to be used as a source because its inherently biased. Actually, I just realised that the AIER source is already used, so I have removed it from further reading. I think its ok despite the source's inherent bias, because its providing the opinion of the AIER.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:51, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Steelkamp, any chance you could address the balance of Harry's comments? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: Sorry for taking so long to respond to everything. I have addressed all your comments. What do you think? Steelkamp (talk) 09:29, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

I think I'm happy with the prose, so I'd support on 1a only. Outside that, Commander Keane raises something that caught my eye as well: the article is heavily dependent on news sources. I don't know enough about the subject to know what material is available but I'd have expected a heavier reliance on engineering sources. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:02, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Support from Michael Aurel

I'd be happy to review this. I'll do so once HJ Mitchell has been through. – Michael Aurel (talk) 05:21, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I won't comment on sourcing, as this is quite outside my area. As for the prose, there's nothing showstopping here, and these points are mostly pretty minor:

• I'd try to make the short description a bit more descriptive: "Perth railway tunnel" or "Railway tunnel under Perth's CBD", perhaps?
  • I've used "Railway tunnel in Perth".
• the construction of the Mandurah line, the tunnel connects the Mandurah line to the Yanchep line, – If it can be done without producing ambiguity, I'd avoid repeating "Mandurah line". For example, would "the Mandurah line, which the tunnel connects to the Yanchep line," work?
  • I've gone with "the tunnel connects it to the Yanchep line".
• It consists of 770 metres (2,530 ft) of twin bored tunnel, – Hmm, should "tunnel" be plural here?
  • I think so. Done.
• a cut-and-cover tunnel at either end, – Per MOS:NOFORCELINK, I'd try to give a brief explanation of what this is.
  • I agree for the body, but for the lead, I don't think further explanation is needed or would fit.
    • That's fair enough. – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:28, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
• The construction of the Mandurah line was divided into eight contract packages. The William Street tunnel was part of Package F, also known as the City Project, the contract for which was awarded to Leighton–Kumagai Gumi in February 2004 for $324.5 million. – As these two sentences are closely related and the first is quite short, I'd consider a semicolon.
  • Done.
• Boring for the first tunnel was completed in June 2006, after which, the tunnel boring machine was transported back to Elizabeth Quay to dig the second tunnel. – No comma after "after which". I also think we can get away with omitting "tunnel" in "second tunnel".
  • Done both.
• to dig the second tunnel. The second tunnel was significantly faster to bore, being completed in October 2006. – I'd probably just write "to dig the second, which was completed in October 2006", as I think it's fairly clear from the months we supply that it took less time.
  • Done.
• Construction was significantly disrupted by industrial action, – A bit of a nitpick, but I'm not sure "significantly" is adding much here (if it wasn't significant, we probably wouldn't be mentioning it). I'd use "extensively", "repeatedly", or some other such word; alternatively, just "disrupted" might work.
  • I've just dropped the word entirely.
• The strikes, along with complications involving heritage protection at Perth Underground station, engineering challenges on the foreshore, – I don't think we've mentioned a foreshore (or a body of water) so far, so I'd give a bit of an idea of where this foreshore was and what its relation to the tunnel was.
  • Good idea. I've added Swan River to the lead.
• resulted in the tunnel's opening being delayed beyond December 2006. – Was this month when it was planned to open? If so, I'd mention this, as otherwise it sounds slightly odd to mention this particular month.
  • You've just made me realise that the whole line's planned opening was December 2006 but the tunnel's deadline was October 2006. They needed the tunnel complete before the rest of the line could be complete. I've decided to ignore this by just using the year in the lead. The rest of the article explains it.
• The first train entered the tunnel in August 2007, and the tunnel opened to passengers on 15 October, ahead of the rest of the Mandurah line's opening on 23 December. – I think "the tunnel" can be replaced by "it" the second time, to avoid repetition.
  • Done.
• Annoying, I realise, but there's some MOS:SANDWICHing on my screen between the infobox and the images of the two stations. You could fix this by moving them to the right; if you're concerned they might push the next image down, you could also consider placing them in a horizontal configuration.
  • Done. I've used a horizontal layout so that the images aren't too far away from the section.
• The William Street tunnel consists of approximately 770 metres (2,530 ft) – We use "approximately" here but not in the lead: depending on what the source says, I'd omit or include it in both places.
  • Omitted, as per the source.
• 770 metres (2,530 ft) of twin bored tunnels, plus adjacent cut-and-cover tunnels. – Hmmm. I'm not sure I fully understand the meaning of "adjacent" here: it sounds a bit as though the cut-and-cover tunnels were adjacent to one another, which I don't believe is what we mean. Assuming it's accurate, the wording in the lead seemed a bit clearer to me (a cut-and-cover tunnel at either end). Also, similarly to above, I'd try to include a brief explanation of the term.
  • Done. And I've added a brief explanation.
• Trains in the William Street tunnel are part of both the Mandurah and Yanchep lines between Perth Underground and Elizabeth Quay stations. – Correct me if this is common phrasing in writing about transportation, but saying that the trains themselves were part of the line sounds slightly odd to me. Would "The William Street tunnel is part ..." work?
  • Yes, I'll do that.
• the William Street tunnel are part of both the Mandurah and Yanchep lines between Perth Underground and Elizabeth Quay stations. North of Perth Underground is the Yanchep line and south of Elizabeth Quay station is the Mandurah line. – I initially read the first sentence as saying that the whole tunnel was part of both lines, which were both situated between the two stations. I'd recommend writing something like "the section of the William Street tunnel between Perth Underground and Elizabeth Quay stations is part of ...". A better solution might be to swap the order of the sentences, which I think will allow us to avoid repeating the names of the lines and stations. I'd also consider that we haven't mentioned where these two stations are in the tunnel yet (that is, which is on the north and which is on the south).
  • I've flipped the order and reworked the sentences. It now implies that Perth Underground is the northern station and Elizabeth Quay is the southern station.
    • That's much better. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:42, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• The rails range from 9 to 21 metres (30 to 69 ft) below ground level. The tunnel has a design life of 120 years. As these last two sentences are fairly short, I'd consider combining them (with each other, or with an earlier sentence).
  • I've combined the first sentence with the previous sentence, due to the similar subject matter. The design life is an unrelated thing to the geometry of the tunnel.
• The southern cut-and-cover portion, a distance of approximately 648 metres (2,126 ft), – "measuring approximately 648 metres", perhaps?
  • Done.
• The tunnel veers east of William Street to reach Perth Underground station, which was dug cut-and-cover. – Looking at the map, I think "veers" is a bit strong here.
  • Agreed. I have replaced it with "curves".
• The bored tunnels then bend west to enter the rail corridor west of Perth station, which is the former Perth marshalling yard. – As I think this could sound as though the station itself was the former Perth marshalling yard, I'd rephrase this a little.
  • Done.
• The tunnel then has a 200-metre (660 ft) ramp structure – I'd omit "structure", as I'm not sure a "ramp structure" is different to a "ramp".
  • Done.
• taking it up to the surface to connect with the rest of the rail network. – "that leads to the surface, where it connects ...", perhaps?
  • Done.
• This was originally not part of the tunnel, – "not originally" sounds a bit more natural to my ears.
  • Done.
• Initial plans for the Mandurah line, created by a Liberal state government, had it branch off the Armadale line at Kenwick, – I think "had it branch off" is a little informal. Maybe "proposed it branch off"?
  • Done.
• The Labor Party nonetheless supported the Kenwick route – Mmm. To my ears, "nonetheless" makes this sound as though the Labor Party was wrong to go against these experts. If possible, I'd omit that word.
  • Done. Personally, I do think the direct route is the best route, but I agree that its more neutral without the "nonetheless".
• After Labor's election victory though, – Comma after "victory", I think
  • I've removed the "though" here as its unnecessary.
• decided in July 2001 that the direct route would be constructed instead of the Kenwick route. – As we mentioned the Kenwick route in the previous sentence, I'd try condensing this: "decided in July 2001 to instead construct the direct route", perhaps?
  • Done.
• To connect the line to the rest of the rail network, the new route required a tunnel under the central business district, – I think we've more or less said the same thing above (a direct route to be constructed instead, which would have necessitated a tunnel through the CBD), so I'd see if this can be condensed.
  • Done.
• There was to be an elevated portion south of St Georges Terrace too, – "too" is a bit informal here, I think. "There was also", perhaps?
  • I've combined this sentence with the previous one, now that it's been shortened.
• an elevated portion south of St Georges Terrace too ... the elevated section along the Swan River foreshore – As I think these refer to the same elevated section, I'd use one description or the other.
  • Done.
• In response to criticism of the Mandurah line's route through the Perth CBD, – I'd omit "Perth"
  • Done.
• and was tasked with submitting its report in February 2002. – This sentence is fairly long; I'd combine this last part with the sentence that follows, which is also about the report.
  • Done.
• Feel free to push back if you disagree, but the listing of the three different routes and the discussion of which groups and entities preferred which options feels quite detailed to me.
  • I actually think this is one of the most interesting parts of the article. I wanted to go into detail on this article because it's already a spin off of the main Mandurah line article.
    • Sorry to add more points to the pile, but I apparently didn't review the prose in this part, so I've done that now (added to the end of the review). Having reread this part, I think the level of detail is mostly fine: my only concern is that we mention which proposed route was preferred by quite a few different parties. In particular, the preference of the convention centre doesn't appear super important to me, and the newspaper opinion poll probably doesn't tell us all that much (as opinion was fairly split). Let me know what you think. – Michael Aurel (talk) 15:18, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
      • I have cut down on this section. I've removed the Halliburton Report and the Convention Centre's concerns. I've left in the Perth City Council's views though, as those are the main reasons that the bored tunnel option was chosen over a cut-and-cover tunnel. I've left in the opinion poll because even a fairly split poll tells you something (that opinions were split and there was no clear favourite). Steelkamp (talk) 11:28, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

        That looks good to me. – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:20, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• designed and constructed as part of Package F of the Southern Suburbs Railway. – Hmm. I'm not sure I know what "Southern Suburbs Railway" means here. In the lead, we described Package F as one of the contract packages that was part of the Mandurah line's construction.
  • Southern Suburbs Railway was the name use for the Mandurah line during construction. I've added a small explanation here.
• Geotechnical testing by Golder Associates occurred between January and March 2003. – As this is a fairly short sentence, I'd try combining it with one of its neighbours
  • I don't think this sentence combines well with its neighbours, so I won't do this.
• Expressions of interest for Package F – I'd link Invitation to tender, as "expression of interest" seems to redirect there.
  • Done.
• Concerns were raised regarding an increase in traffic congestion caused by the removal of the bridge, but Lord Mayor Nattrass supported the removal of the bridge because it allowed for a future redevelopment of the foreshore. – I'd suggest something like "There were concerns the bridge's removal would increase traffic". I would also replace the second "the removal of the bridge" with "it", to avoid repetition.
  • Done both.
• After lobbying from the Perth City Council, consideration was given to sinking the Fremantle line within Northbridge – I'm assuming this is standard terminology in engineering, but do we mean "lowering"? "sinking" often refers to submerging into water.
  • The word sinking is commonly used, including by the sources, but I've gone with "lowering", which should be more understandable to a broad audience.
• The state government attempted to reach an agreement for the City of Perth – I'm not sure "agreement for" is ideal; maybe "agreement under which"?
  • Done.
• City of Perth to fund the sinking in exchange for the city receiving the right to develop the land on top of the railway, – I'd condense this to "in exchange for the right to develop".
  • Done.
• The southern entrance to the tunnel, including the 135-metre (443 ft) of uncovered tunnel (image caption) – "including the 135 metres"
  • Fixed.
• In conjunction with this, the roof of the William Street tunnel was extended from Lake Street to Milligan Street, – Is this Milligan Street, Perth? This could also be linked in the image caption.
  • Yes it is. I've linked it in both cases.
• and in November 2003, Leighton–Kumagai Gumi was selected as the preferred proponent. – No comma after "2003". I'd also write "the latter" in place of "Leighton–Kumagai Gumi".
  • Done both.
• Not a big deal, but the article uses "due to" quite a bit. Depending on which style guide you open, this phrase may or may not be somewhat discouraged in British English. I'd try swapping out a few for "because of" or "owing to".
  • HJ Mitchell had the same comment as well. I've gone through and removed instances multiple instances of "due to" within the same paragraph.
• The following month, the contract was approved by Cabinet – Minor, but we referred to it as "State Cabinet" above.
  • Changed to State Cabinet for consistency.
• with the cost rising to about $320 million, making the cost of the Southern Suburbs Railway $1.059 billion – "making" seems a bit informal to me. Perhaps "bringing"?
  • Done.
• The cost increase prompted shadow transport minister – As we mentioned "the cost" twice in the previous sentence, I'd write "This increase".
  • Done.
• and National Party leader Max Trenorden – I'd give a link for "National Party"
  • Done.
• As a result of pressure from the Liberal Party and Greens – Would "Under pressure" work? I'd also write "the Greens".
  • Yes, done both.
• The contract was controversial due to the previous cost blowout and the risks of tunnelling. – By "risks", I'm assuming we mean financial risks (as opposed to, say, safety risks)?
  • Risks could include unexpected utilities underground, unexpected geology, ground subsiding, which are ultimately financial risks.
    • That makes sense. Would it work to write "the financial risks of tunnelling" here, so that this can't be interpeted as saying that there was opposition because there were fears it would be unsafe? – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:42, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
      • Done. Steelkamp (talk) 02:43, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• The contract was tabled on 2 March 2004. – As in a few places above, this sentence is fairly short; I'd see if it can be combined (perhaps using a semicolon) with a neighbour.
  • Done, I've combined it with the following sentence.
• MacTiernan claimed it was the first time a contract for such a construction project had been publicly released. – Was MacTiernan correct? I only ask because the word "claim" can call [the] statement's credibility into question (MOS:CLAIM).
  • Its sourced to a statement by MacTiernan herself. I've changed "claimed" to "said", which is more neutral but still shows its was MacTiernan that said it.
• In August 2005, the state's auditor general – Should this be written as "Auditor-General"?
  • Sources are inconsistent, but the auditor general's office itself goes by "auditor general". See https://audit.wa.gov.au.
    • These Ngrams suggest you're right about the hyphenation. Should it be capitalised, though? Cf. these Ngrams: – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:42, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
      • MOS:JOBTITLES is the relevant guideline here, which says "When a title is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office, e.g., the King, not the king (referring to Charles III); the President, not the president (referring to Donald Trump)." So I've capitalised Auditor General. Steelkamp (talk) 02:43, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• released a report that said the City Project's contract management had been good, – "effective", maybe? "good" seems slightly on the informal side.
  • Done.

This is down to the end of the "Procurement" section. I'll hopefully do the rest in the next few days. – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:02, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

• starting with William Street, Wellington Street and the Horseshoe Bridge on 15 March, and followed by Barrack Street, Riverside Drive and The Esplanade the following month. – We used Oxford commas above, so I'd recommend using them here. Also, seeing as there are a few "and"s in this sentence, I'd remove the one before "followed by".
  • Done both.
• As I think they haven't been mentioned above, I'd link Barrack Street and Riverside Drive, Perth.
  • Done.
• followed by [...] the following month – Very picky, but "next" month, maybe (to avoid repetition)?
  • Done.
• Demolition of buildings to make way for the William Street station began in April 2004. The William Street bridge was demolished in August 2004. – These sentences are quite short, and both are related to demolition, so I'd consider combining them.
  • Done.
• It was intended that the freeway interchange road layout would be redesigned to be more pedestrian-friendly. – I'd consider something like "The freeway interchange road layout was intended to be redesigned to make it ...".
  • I've just removed "road layout", which should make this sentence better. Otherwise, I think the sentence is good the way it is.
• By October 2004, construction was several weeks behind schedule as a result of delays caused by demolition – This is fine, though I'd see if using both "as a result of" and "caused by" can be avoided: perhaps "owing to delays arising from"?
  • Done.
• By October 2005, the Joondalup line tracks – We have mentioned this line above, in the section I skipped over (so this suggestion might apply to that part), but I'd make it clear that this is the former name of the Yanchep line.
  • I've added an explanatory footnote mentioning the name change.
• had been slewed 6 metres (20 ft) to the south. – This word was new to me; I'd suggest adding a link to the Wiktionary page, and perhaps a brief explanation.
  • I've reworded this to avoid the word "slewed".
• allowing for the Fremantle line to be slewed north above it, making room for the Roe Street drive structure to be built between the two lines. – Honestly, this bit has gone over my head: what's the "Roe Street drive structure"? I'd also add a link to Roe Street, Perth, as this seems to be the first time we mention it.
  • I've decided to mention Roe Street in the description section. I've also added that the dive structure contains the ramp up to the surface.
• During excavation along the foreshore section of the tunnel, six wooden jetty piers were uncovered, – Hmm. I'm not sure I understand what a "jetty pier" is; would one of the two words suffice? Also, were the six of them whole jetties? My understanding is that jetties are fairly large.
  • I think I meant to write "jetty pillars" instead of "jetty piers". So not that large a find, it was from only one jetty.
    • That makes much more sense. – Michael Aurel (talk) 15:30, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
• dating back to before Mounts Bay was reclaimed – I'd try to give some idea of what Mounts Bay was (for example, is it related to the "Mounts Bay Road" we mentioned above?). I'd also consider mentioning when it was reclaimed.
  • I've added some context. The bay used to go right up to where Mounts Bay Road is today. The whole area was reclaimed so that the freeway could be built.
• It was planned for there to be an art installation at the tunnel's southern entrance, – I'd go for something like "An art installation was planned at the tunnel's southern entrance".
  • Done.
• at the tunnel's southern entrance, made of twenty reused sheet piles – I'd link sheet pile.
  • Done.
• made of twenty reused sheet piles sticking out 24 metres (79 ft) high, – I'm not sure both "sticking out" and "high" are needed. Maybe something like "each 24 metres (79 ft) tall"?
  • Done.
• painted on one side and left bare on the other. – Seeing as the art installation was cancelled, I assume these weren't actually painted? If so, I'd make clear that these paintings were only planned.
  • I've added "to be", which should help here.
• The tunnels were dug by a single tunnel boring machine (TBM) named the Sandgroper, after the endemic insect. – I'd link Tunnel boring machine
  • Done.
• launched from Esplanade station, boring north to the Roe Street dive structure via William Street station, – Earlier, we described this as a "drive structure".
  • Yes, drive structure is a typo. Fixed.
• As the tunnel was dug at a shallow level below buildings on William Street through sandy soil with high groundwater, an earth pressure balance TBM was chosen, – I'd link to the specific "Earth pressure balance" section at that article. Then again, the solution here might be to change the redirect's target, as I'm not sure why it'd point somewhere other than that subsection.
  • I've changed the redirect target. Turns out the redirect was pointing to the section, but it was miscapitalised.
• Special features of the TBM included a ground anchor detector, due to the ground anchors left behind following the construction of basements along William Street. – This makes it sound a bit as though the detector itself was "due to" the ground anchors, which I'm not sure works. Maybe something like "The TBM included a ground anchor detector because ground anchors had been left behind from the construction of basements along William Street"?
  • Done.
• the TBM cost $10 million, was 60 metres (200 ft) long and weighed 300 tonnes (330 tons). – Missing Oxford comma.
  • Done.
• Grout was injected into the ground underneath buildings above the tunnel's path to reduce ground movement. – I'd link grout
  • Done.
• Initial planning aimed for the TBM to bore 4 metres (13 ft) per day, – Maybe something like "The TBM was initially planned to bore ..."?
  • Done.
• to bore 4 metres (13 ft) per day, increasing to 10 metres (33 ft) per day. – Did the plans for how much would be bored become more ambitious, or was it planned that the amount bored each day would increase throughout the dig?
  • The latter. I've added some clarification.
• However, after one week the TBM had bored just 3.5 metres (11 ft). – As this sentence is fairly short, I'd combine it with the previous one ("..., but after one week ..."). I'd also replace "the TBM" with "it".
  • Done both.
• Progress was slow due to problems with o-rings, which needed to be replaced. There were further delays the following week because of industrial action. – As above, I'd combine these two short sentences.
  • Done.
• It was intended that the first tunnel between the Esplanade and William Street stations, a distance of 470 metres (1,540 ft), would be completed before Christmas – I'd recommend something like "The first tunnel between ... , was intended to be completed before Christmas". I'd also use "spanning" in place of "a distance of".
  • Done both.
• the TBM had bored a distance of 240 metres (790 ft). – I think "a distance of" can be omitted.
  • Done.
• Tunnelling resumed early from the Christmas break to make up for lost time. – Maybe "early after"?
  • I prefer the current wording.
• It was relaunched heading north on 4 May, reaching the Roe Street dive structure on 3 June, twelve days ahead of schedule. – "relaunched heading" doesn't entirely read naturally to me; maybe "It was relaunched on 4 May, heading north"?
  • I've redone the sentence as per the following suggestion.
• It was relaunched on 22 September and reached the Roe Street dive structure on 24 October 2006. – The two sentences before this one started with "was relaunched" and "was launched"; not sure whether it can be done easily, but I'd try to switch up the phrase "was relaunched".
  • Done. I've rephrased this paragraph.
• The maximum speed attained was 19 metres (62 ft) over a 24-hour period. – Perhaps a bit of a technicality, but I'm not sure "19 metres" counts as a speed. Maybe go for something like "The maximum distance covered over a 24-hour period was 19 metres (62 ft)"?
  • Done.
• In April 2005, MacTiernan revealed that the New MetroRail project completion date had been delayed from December 2006 to April 2007 – I think this should be "New MetroRail project's"
  • I've changed this sentence due to an earlier comment, so this doesn't apply anymore.
• The possibility of further delays caused by the City Project was first raised by the Public Transport Authority in December 2005. – Were these concerns raised to the public? If so, I'd write "announced" (or similar). If not, I'd specify to whom these concerns were raised.
  • The possibility for delays was revealed to The West Australian newspaper, so not exactly "announced", but it was revealed to the public. I have gone with "revealed".
• In April 2006, she announced that the City Project's likely completion date had been delayed – As we haven't mentioned her name since the beginning of the paragraph, I'd use it here.
  • Done.
• As the last two sentences are saying largely the same thing with different dates, I'd see if they can be combined. A bit rough, but something like "She announced further delays in April 2006 and April 2007, with the estimated opening date being pushed back to July 2007 and October 2007, respectively" might work.
  • I don't think its a good idea to merge these two sentences. It gets unwieldy and confusing with what i have tried. I have improved the wording here a bit though.
    • I think that's fine. – Michael Aurel (talk) 15:30, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
• The City Project reached practical completion in September 2007 – I'm not quite sure what "practical completion" means (was it practically complete, but theoretically incomplete?). Would just "completion" work, perhaps?
  • Practical completion has a specific meaning in construction, which is that the infrastructure is ready to be used for its intended purpose but minor defects remain.
    • That makes sense. I suggest adding in a link to wikt:practical completion, so other readers don't experience similar confusion. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:45, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
      • Done. Steelkamp (talk) 02:43, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• and was handed over to the PTA on 10 September. – As we haven't used or introduced the abbreviation above, I'd either use the full name consistently, or introduce the abbreviation in the first instance and it use from then on.
  • I've added the abbreviation upon first mention.
• the Fremantle line was fully closed and the Joondalup line was closed south of Leederville station – I'd link Leederville railway station.
  • Done.
• so that the William Street tunnel's tracks, signalling, electrical, and communications systems could be connected to the rest of the network. – If we're referring to "signalling systems", I'd remove the comma after "tracks" and use "and" there.
  • Done.
• The William Street tunnel and its two stations opened to the public on 15 October 2007. The rest of the Mandurah line opened on 23 December 2007. – I'd combine these two.
  • Done.

This is down to the end of the "Construction" section. Will hopefully finish off the last two sections soon. – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:40, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

• Construction was significantly disrupted by strikes, starting in November 2004. – Similar comment on "significantly" as above.
  • Done.
• The state government generally took a hands-off approach regarding strikes, saying it was a matter between the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union (CFMEU) and Leighton–Kumagai Gumi. – The first part of this sentence initially led me to think it was talking about how the state government usually responds to strikes in general, whereas the second part seems to suggest we're talking about how it responded to these specific strikes. Would something like "The state government took a hands-off approach to the strikes" work?
  • Yes, it is referring to these strikes in particular. I've implemented the wording you suggested.
• By May 2005, the City Project was subject to twenty-eight days lost to strikes – I'd go for "the City Project had lost twenty-eight days to strikes"
  • Done.
• the most days out of any of the Southern Suburbs Railway project's packages. – I think "days" and "out" can be omitted here.
  • Done.
• in July due to ... in August for ... and October due to – I would include an "in" before "October" for parallelism.
  • Done.
• Leighton–Kumagai Gumi applied for a strike ban, telling the commission that unscheduled stoppages to tunnelling would change the pressure at the TBM's cutter head, which could potentially cause pipes to burst, – I'd omit "potentially", as I think it's already implied by "could".
  • Done.
• pipes to burst, buildings to crack and potholes to appear in roads. – Oxford comma
  • Done.
• The contractor said that it had lost forty-six days of work to industrial action since July 2004. The following month, – This sounds a bit as though "the following month" is referring to August 2004. This can probably be fixed by including the month in which the contractor made this statement.
  • I've reworded this section in response to HurricaneHink's comments, so I think this issue is resolved.
• On 28 February, they voted to remain on strike until the unfair dismissal claim was heard in the Industrial Relations Commission. – To me, "by" seems a little more natural here than "in".
  • Done.
• MacTiernan criticised the strike, but said that there was nothing she could do as it was – I'd go for "said she could do nothing".
  • I like the current wording better, so I have not changed it.
• Leighton and the state opposition disputed the claims that the state government could do nothing. – I'd probably shorten this to "disputed this claim", as we mentioned the content of the claim in the previous sentence. A semicolon might also be appropriate.
  • Done both.
• The strikers voted on 8 March to return to work. – As in a few places above, this is a fairly short sentence. I'd see if it can be attached to a neighbour or expanded.
  • I don't think this sentence would work well if combined with another.
• Because the strike was done against the advice of the union, the Building and Construction Commission sued – By "the union", I think we mean the CMFEU? If so, I'd use the abbreviation, as we do above.
  • Yes, done.
• the Building and Construction Commission sued the individual workers instead, the first time such an action had been undertaken. – Is this the first time this had happened in Australia (or in the world)? I'd specify this. I think the final phrase could also be reduced to "the first time this had happened ['in Australia' or similar]".
  • It was the first time under a new act, which I have clarified.
    • Nice. In the first time such an action had been undertaken under, would it be possible to switch "undertaken" out for "taken", so as to avoid repetition? – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
      • I've replaced "undertaken" with "done" instead. Steelkamp (talk) 02:43, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

        That's better, but saying an action was "done" is a bit informal, I think. Would "taken" work? Or you could write "this had been done", which is fine. – Michael Aurel (talk) 15:23, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

        I've gone with "this had been done." Steelkamp (talk) 11:28, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• The prosecution of those workers was described as "unprecedented" by the Australian Institute of Employment Rights, – As this was the subject of the previous sentence, I think we can probably write "This was described".
  • Done.
• and relied on the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005 passed by the Howard government, which was criticised for removing the right to strike. – I think there's a touch of ambiguity here: was the act or the Howard government criticised?
  • The act. This section has been reworded to avoid this issue.
• Eighty-seven workers admitted the strike was illegal in October 2007. – Were these 87 workers all among those who were prosecuted? If so, I'd specify this.
  • Yes, done.
• fined the workers up to $9,000 for striking and $1,000 for ignoring a return to work order from the Industrial Relations Commission. – "return-to-work order" was hyphenated above, so I'd make this consistent. The hyphenated version seems correct to me.
  • Done. I see both used in sources, but have chosen the hyphenated version for consistency.
• In early 2006, the joint venture lodged a claim for an additional $141 million in cost overruns – I'd replace "the joint venture" with "it", and I'd swap our "lodged" for something like "submitted" to avoid repetition.
  • Done both,
• resulting from ... the difficulty in preserving heritage buildings – If it doesn't affect the meaning, I'd omit "the difficulty in".
  • Done.
• Leighton had initially expected to make an $8 million profit on the project, which was reduced to a $10–15 million loss. – Maybe "became" in place of "was reduced to" (given we're aren't talking about only a reduction in profit)?
  • Done.
• The claims had risen a further $13 million by March 2006, reaching a total of $204 million. MacTiernan said that only a small portion of that total would be paid out. – Two short sentences: semicolon, maybe?
  • Done.
• Leighton filed a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia in April 2006 seeking to be relieved from its contractual obligations – "relieved of" seems more natural to me.
  • Done.
• or alternatively have the practical completion deadline extended until the PTA provides the insurance. – "provides" should be "provided", I think, as we're situated in the past tense here.
  • Done.
• By this point, tunnelling had stopped because the joint venture did not want to start the most challenging phase with the proper insurance to cover potential risks such as cave-ins. – Hmm, should "with" be "without" here?
  • Yes, fixed.
• was reached for the government to cover insurance claims until the Supreme Court determines the appropriate level of insurance. – As above, I think "determines" should be "determined".
  • Done.
• The first writ, filed in June, related to the contract's rise and fall provisions, – I think "writ" can be omitted.
  • Done.
• By September 2007, there was another writ for the costs of dewatering – I think this could sound as though there were earlier writs that asked for dewatering costs to be covered.
  • I've clarified in the article.
• In September 2008, the court ruled in favour of Leighton, awarding them about $6 million in damages. – As we seem to be talking about just Leighton here, should this be "it" rather than "them"?
  • Done.
• The western route runs along the Mitchell Freeway, entering a tunnel south of Malcolm Street to exit the freeway median strip, – Would "exiting the freeway median strip via a tunnel south of Malcolm Street" work? The "to" here initially sounded to me as though it would indicate direction rather than purpose. I'd also consider a link to median strip.
  • Done.
• before bending east to surface in the existing rail corridor, terminating at Perth station from the west. – I think "from the west" can be omitted here, as it's implied by "east".
  • Done.
• retain through-running with the Joondalup line, necessitating an additional train for $18 million. – "costing $18 million", maybe?
  • Done.
• The central route runs in a cut-and-cover tunnel along William Street, bending west to connect with the Joondalup line. – By "bending west", do we mean the bend south of Elizabeth Quay? Or perhaps we're referring to the slight turn to the east that occurs before Perth Underground?
  • Its talking about the large bend west, north of Perth Underground.
    • Yup, makes sense. I think I was recalling that the section north of Perth Underground was part of the Yanchep line, and so I assumed that whatever bend we were talking about must have been south of that. But the station of course didn't exist at this point, and you can't connect to something which doesn't exist yet! – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:19, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
• There would be underground stations at William Street near the Esplanade Busport and at William Street between Murray and Wellington streets, – I think we mean that there would be two underground stations along William Street, at different parts of the street? I initially read "near the Esplanade Busport and at William Street" as part of one phrase. Would something like "There would be two underground stations along William Street, the first ... and the second" work?
  • Done.
• This route differs from the government's proposed route planned by the Perth Urban Rail Development office by having the line underground south of The Esplanade instead of elevated. – I think "in that the line runs" is a little more natural here than "by having the line". I'd also put "planned by the Perth Urban Rail Development office" between commas, to help with parsing the sentence.
  • I've removed "planned by the Perth Urban Rail Development office" as I don't think it adds much. I've implemented your other suggestion.
• underground south of The Esplanade instead of elevated. – Link The Esplanade (Perth) and delink it in the next paragraph. Not quite sure "instead of elevated" works here: would something like "and is not elevated" or "instead of being elevated" work?
  • Done both.
• The estimated cost of this option was A$139 million. – I'd move the link to Australian dollar to the previous paragraph, which is where we first mention an amount of money.
  • Done.
• because of the significant disruption – Similar comment to above about "significant".
  • Done.
• There would be underground stations at the Esplanade Busport – Linked above
  • Removed the duplicate link.
• Another route considered involved tunnelling – Would something like "They also considered a route which involved ..." work?
  • Done.
• disruption to St Georges Terrace to construct a station there. – I'm not totally sure I understand what we mean by this: is it that the construction of a station at St Georges Terrace would disrupt St Georges Terrace?
  • The source doesn't outright state it, but I believe a station at St Georges Terrace would be underneath the street, and the street would have to close for some time for construction to occur.
    • Makes sense. Would something like "the disruption that constructing a station there would cause to St Georges Terrace" work? Alternatively, "the disruption it would cause to St Georges Terrace" might work. – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:24, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
• However, that route would cause significant disruption to the Mitchell Freeway during construction – I'd write "during its construction", to make clear that the Mitchell Freeway wasn't under construction.
  • Done.
• it claimed a station at the Esplanade would be a security risk for the convention centre if it were to host heads of state. – "would pose", maybe?
  • I've removed this section entirely as per an earlier comment.
• would be a security risk for the convention centre if it were to host heads of state. – I think "for the convention centre" can be omitted here.
  • I've removed this section entirely as per an earlier comment.
• was re-established to conduct a more detailed analysis on the two remaining routes, – "analysis of"
  • Done.
• State Cabinet endorsed this route in June, with Lord Mayor Peter Nattrass now being in support of the improved central route. – Would "and it received the support of Nattrass" work?
  • I've gone with "State Cabinet endorsed this route in June, with Nattrass now in support."

That's all from me. As I said above, these are fairly minor prose points for the most part, and my only real concern is that the article might be a bit technical in places. Looking forward to your responses. – Michael Aurel (talk) 09:33, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed review Michael Aurel! I've responded to every comment now. Steelkamp (talk) 16:13, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience, Steelkamp, throughout what ended up being a quite extended review. There's one outstanding point above, but I trust you'll address that, and I have no further concerns here. I'm happy to support. – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:31, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Commander Keane

The article is comprehensive on news information, but for a bored tunnel I would expect more on the geology, distance between bores, number of lining segments etc. I have seen this info in sources, but I am too busy to contribute and I don't know what a general reader should expect. I am happy to read through when if is added though.--Commander Keane (talk) 07:37, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Also, three statements in the technical section of the infobox are unsourced. Commander Keane (talk) 07:52, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Steelkamp, it's been 11 days; any responses to these comments? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:11, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I didn't see your comment Gog. I've added citations to the infobox where its needed. There's some more information in academic sources on such things as geology, distance between bores, number of lining segments etc. I'm wary of being too technical. Michael has above said he's concerned the article is a bit too technical. I'll reread all the academic sources to see what I think. Steelkamp (talk) 16:33, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

@Commander Keane: I've added some more technical detail using using academic sources. I've added info on ground anchors here, ground conditions here, and compensation grouting to reduce ground settlement here. As for things like distance between bores and number of lining segments, I think those are a bit too much like trivia to be mentioned. Its like mentioning the number of sleepers on a railway line. What do you think? Steelkamp (talk) 12:50, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• It is an improvement, and I am not going to stand in the way of this promotion :-). By lining segments I didn't mean along the route. I read somewhere that 5 were used to form the rings - you can see the gaps in the lead photo. However, it is not widely reported so I suppose it is just common knowledge that TBM construction uses segmental lining. I think one day someone could, per summary style, write an article on the technical aspects given the sources available - however I value this information more than most/newspapers.
• the TBM had three ground anchor detectors in case any undocumented ones were present - the ones is a little awkward
• Striking these could damage the TBM and cause ground settlement if the backfilling was not done properly. - properly is awkward. The source emphasises the settlement, not the TBM damage (Sigl & Yamazaki 2007, p. 48, mentions the special cutters to mitigate this potential damage). As it is a new sentence, it may not be clear if the backfilling responsibility refers to the previous decommissioning of the old wells or the new tunnelling.

Commander Keane (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

This should be an improvement on the wording. Good idea to mention the special cutters. I've added a sentence on that. Steelkamp (talk) 06:34, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Hurricanehink

I like transportation projects, and since I have an FAC open, I figured I should review this, especially since it looks like someone is working on a good topic for the Yanchep line!

• Tunnel boring machine should be linked when you mention "twin bored tunnels" in the lead, like you do in the body of the article
  • Done.
• "the contract for which was awarded to Leighton–Kumagai Gumi in February 2004 for $324.5 million" - I suggest adding a note that all dollar figures are (presumably) in Australia dollars, unadjusted for inflation
  • I haven't added the note, but I've added a link to A$ upon the currency being first mentioned in the lead and body, as per MOS:CURRENCY, which says "the first mention of a particular currency should use its full, unambiguous signifier (e.g. A$52), with subsequent references using just the appropriate symbol (e.g. $88), unless this would be unclear". (TBH I thought I had already done that, I do it on most articles I write)
• "Construction was disrupted by industrial action, which culminated in the prosecution of 107 workers for illegally striking in February and March 2006 following the issuance of a strike ban by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission." - interesting stuff, I suggest splitting it into two sentences.
  • I don't think it needs to be split into two, the sentence isn't that long already. Unless you are suggesting making this part longer?
• "resulted in the tunnel's opening being delayed beyond the 2006 deadline" - this is the first instance knowing there even was a 2006 deadline. I suggest changing something like "delayed the opening a year beyond its originally 2006 deadline." That gives more context to the deadline.
  • Does "beyond its 2006 deadline" work?
• "The first train entered the tunnel in August 2007" - as a test, I'm guessing?
  • Yes.
• "120 years" - make sure all number+units like this have a non-breaking space, like "120 years"
  • I think I got them all.
• You mention the "Claisebrook sewer" without any context. What is Claisebrook? Was that the old name for Perth? Or the river here?
  • Its a stormwater drain that used to be a sewer that drains into Claisebrook Cove. Claise Brook used to be an actual brook that ran in the general vicinity.
• "The contractor said that it had lost forty-six days of work to industrial action since July 2004." - it's not clear when the "46 days" was as of. If it's in total, maybe mention this at the beginning of the section, after "Construction was significantly disrupted by strikes, starting in November 2004." I suggest moving this because immediately after "July 2004" it mentions the strike ban in "The following month", but I don't think that's referring to something happening in August 2004.
  • The 46 days is as of the contractor applying for the strike ban in November 2005. I've added an "In its application" to clarify that this was said when the strike bad was applied for.
• "the CFMEU paid Leighton $150,000 plus legal costs and admitted to breaching the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act twenty-nine times." - small nitpick but numbers larger than ten should be written out in numbers, so "29"
  • MOS:NUMBERS says that "Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words".
• "Tunnelling resumed on 8 May after an agreement was reached for the government to cover insurance claims until the Supreme Court determines the appropriate level of insurance." - present tense?
  • Good catch, I've changed this to past tense.
• Should the part about the Perth link in 2012-2013 have a separate section, like "Subsequent construction"? It doesn't seem logical to include in "Procurement".
  • You're right. Its not just an offhand comment, so I've added it to a new "After opening" section.

The article is decent, with some pretty minor nitpicks. Let me know if you have any questions about my comments. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the review @Hurricanehink:! I've responded to each of your comments. Steelkamp (talk) 08:09, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Support - thanks for the quick replies! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Source review

Is there any truth to the complaints in The West Australian#Controversies? I wonder if there are somewhat independent reports, not just newspapers. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: That newspaper has a right of centre bias and a high level of factual reporting according to https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-west-australian/, which is why Labor politicians sometimes criticise it. I've used other news sources such as the ABC, Sydney Morning Herald and the Australian Financial Review where possible, but as Perth's only daily newspaper, The West Australian provides the most coverage. Aren't newspapers generally be considered independent reports? Steelkamp (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

One problem with newspapers is that they are typically not experts on the topic they report on. Technical details too are often missing in news reports. So for an infrastructure project, I wonder about technical reports. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:17, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree that newspapers aren't the best for technical details. For the technical details in this article, I've used academic sources, mainly Sigl & Yamazaki 2007, and Hudson-Smith & Grinceri 2007, plus the original reports by the Perth City Rail Advisory Committee and the Master Plan, which covers the gaps that newspapers don't/aren't good at covering. Steelkamp (talk) 11:05, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Do you have any more comments? Steelkamp (talk) 05:53, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

I just realised, when you say "I wonder if there are somewhat independent reports", are you asking about independent reports about the claims on The West Australian#Controversies? Steelkamp (talk) 09:44, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, no, meant on the engineering characteristics of this tunnel. Otherwise, I don't have any questions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:14, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support Nice article. The only point I would question is whether "new Cabinet of Western Australia" should have lower case "c". That's such a minor quibble it shouldn't hold up my support though. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:53, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:27, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.